Clinton camp shakeup? Maybe not
Manchester, N.H. -- Shortly before New Hampshire's polls closed -- a time when the big question in Democratic political circles was how easily Barack Obama would win today's primary, not whether he would win -- reports were hot and heavy of an impending shakeup in Hillary Clinton's camp.
Changes still might come; not so long ago, after all, the party's nominating contest was considered hers to lose. But as Clinton staked out, and held, a consistent lead in the race -- and with Obama conceding just moments ago -- there were no recriminations emanating from her camp, at least publicly.
Clinton strategist Ann Lewis was asked earlier in the evening about staff overhauls and, The Times' Peter Nicholas reports, she responded: " We're gearing up -- not shaking up.''
In comments to Fox News Channel, Lewis put this spin on possible staff changes: "We have always known that as we got past New Hampshire the campaign was going to need to grow, evolve and expand. We’ve got 21 states in all of one day on Feb. 5. That’s a real Super Tuesday. We knew we’d have to be getting bigger to deal with it. ... Again, there is room in the campaign for a lot of smart, hardworking, good people.”
-- Don Frederick
Andrew Malcolm's immigrant parents repeatedly stressed the importance of active participation in a democracy. Early lessons included learning the alphabetical list of states by watching televised roll calls of national political conventions. That childhood exposure led to a lifelong fascination with politics, including 40-plus years of covering them and a brief stint practicing them as press secretary to Laura Bush in 1999-2000. A veteran foreign and national correspondent, Malcolm served on the Times Editorial Board and was a Pulitzer finalist in 2004. He is the author of 10 nonfiction books and father of four.
Johanna Neuman is a veteran Washington correspondent for both The Los Angeles Times and USA Today, having covered presidents and politics as far back as Ronald Reagan. A former president of the White House Correspondents Assn., she authored a book on media and foreign policy, “Lights, Camera, Wars.” Most recently she was co-author of the 
Subscribe to this Blog
Just shows the sheer absurdity of placing so much importance on Iowa. Hillary, Giuliani, maybe Romney -- all known in "Blue" states with big cities and ethnic problems, especially the first two -- will do better in states like Calif, NY, Florida and anywhere there are issues common to these regions which virtually don't exist in Iowa: concerns about immigration and black-brown-white and in L A, even Asian ethnic tensions and challenges in getting people to work together; traffic and pollution (there you also get states like Georgia, with Atlanta being nearly as bad as L A and getting worse fast), real estate woes, and urban school problems (which are worse in cities with biggest immigrant populations, and secondly in the black areas which both the Clintons and Obama can reach and have courted), NYC and LA also have the biggest problems with terror threats, while they share with Texas, New Mexico and other border states, concerns about illegal immigrants virtually taking over whole towns and creating overnight havoc and financial problems.
In Iowa, only the broadest of issues resonate: better-paying jobs and health care (which take on a different flavor when the illegal quotient is factored out), the war in Iraq, its economic and human toll -- and clearly above all, more honestly and sincerity from politicians who at least SEEM to listen to the people. That's why Edwards and Huckabee did so well there, while the more polished ones (which Edwards is but knows how to play up his worker dad to max effect) like Rudy, Romney (though his religiousness seemed a positive in Iowa) failed. The most sophisticated and articulate, who moved foreign policy issues front and center so well, are already gone: Dodd and Biden.
That part saddens me: this is a country that can only deal with 15-second sound bites from charismatic characters with "a good personal story," while the smartest and most experience might as well have "leprosy" as Richardson put it. Yes, the call for "change" and seeing a black and female face is positive: but it's sad that our democracy means people might be making their decisions based on such shallow, heart vs. mind, reasons.
Yes, you have to "like" the candidate, but let's make sure we vote for the whole person, and if we really are becoming color and gender blind, put ALL the candidates to the same grueling test, don't give anyone a pass. Let's remember that in the difficult states Hillary and Rudy know best, these things will matter even more, and might be completely different from rural states.
As for the youth factor: New Hampshire winner McCain is the oldest in the race, but still seems "fresh" because of his ideas. Let's give young people more credit than to think they'll only vote by and for age. The under-30 set is all about seeing people as individuals, and not as hung up on "young" vs. "Gen X" vs. "Boomers" and Seniors, male/female, black/white. (In fact, by the time they're over 50, they'll probably refuse in droves to be counted by AARP which will hopefully die out with the prejudices of the last generation.) For them, it's about the message and attitude, stupid.
Posted by: julia s | January 08, 2008 at 09:09 PM